Prole condescension

Hello, everyone. While I was reading "Political correctness jumps the shark" I noticed that one of the most oft-used tools in the ANUSian toolbox is a tad blunt.

Quote

But don't let that stop the liberal crusade: too many former potato-pickers and do-nothings are now making good money as professional busybodies, rising inside the system instead of on their own merits

(A relatively tame instantiation)

This tool need not be discarded or replaced -- individuals of hardy ilk certainly need that blunt force trauma to the head in order to 'snap out of it'.

Those who are of a more delicate persuasion, however, require a tool capable of surgical precision with a margin of error no greater than two millimeters, maybe one millimeter.

Frankenstein was one of the few books I enjoyed in high school. The others being Dante's Inferno, The Odyssey, and Moby Dick. These books could not be censored for including such delicate topics so, indeed, there were far more socially friendly and more recent books available in literature class.

You are of the opinion that Social Darwinism exists. Thus, you misinterpret the passage in question as an affirmation of your own beliefs while glazing over all of the evidence to the contrary.

Do you have a citation from a peer-reviewed academic journal or a quotation from a reputable literary professor to support your claim? Or was this just a "feeling" you had? The fact that Mary Shelley was a part of the Romanticist movement does not mean her principles are in accordance with ANUS' principles! When I read Frankenstein, humility and compassion for human life is what I sense in Shelley, not the notion that some humans are inherently better than others! How absurd!

How ironic! The only thing absurd in this thread is your own insistence on relativism.

I don't need an ornate slip of paper handed down to me from some hive-minded learning institution in order to discern what is true and what is not. Especially concerning something "subjective" like literature.

You have your own biases, just as I have mine. The difference is, my "bias" is rooted in reality, your bias is rooted in that which satisfies your own ego and keeps you safe from judgement.

Shelly does show some degree of empathy for the peasantry. But it was tempered with a sense of reverence for the noble and the transcendent. If the world was on the verge of collapse due to overpopulation in her own time, Shelley would not have had such a tenderhearted attitude.

Congrats on reading a wikipedia synopsis on Nietzsche, Captious! If you weren't a pretentious fagmunch you might know that, in English, we have a word "resentment," which means the exact same thing as the French word and that Nietzsche only used the French term because he had a boner for France and no equivalent German word. But I'm glad to know you're a well-read man of the internet.

Anyway here's a dandy from your hero:"Hospitality. -- The meaning of the usages of hospitality is the paralysing of enmity in the stranger. Where the stranger is no longer felt to be first and foremost an enemy, hospitality decreases; it flourishes as long as its evil presupposition flourishes."

There is no difference between discourse and the essence of war. Their aim is to destroy, not denounce, the adversary. -- some guy who wasn't Nietzsche

Thus, ANUS does the right thing by telling it how they see it. How can one politely destroy one's enemy? Via poisonous, underhanded methods fitting of a weakened caste, resentful of the status of the proles! And thus you fall into the same trap of ressentiment you so desire to escape. Quelle horreur!

How ironic! The only thing absurd in this thread is your own insistence on relativism.

Reality is subjective, anyone with an ounce of philosophical understanding (i.e. not your starry-eyed Romantics or metaphysical Traditionalists) appreciates this. I'd advise you to spend some time reading philosophy rather than fiction, although one could do much worse than Shelley. The problem is that people look to their starry-eyed British Romantics as purveyors of a profound truth and read literary devices as some key to a cosmic order instead of as an individual's subjective view of the world. But what do Romantifags know about the world? C'est la fin des haricots! Thanks, Google!

Reality is subjective, anyone with an ounce of philosophical understanding (i.e. not your starry-eyed Romantics or metaphysical Traditionalists) appreciates this. I'd advise you to spend some time reading philosophy rather than fiction, although one could do much worse than Shelley. The problem is that people look to their starry-eyed British Romantics as purveyors of a profound truth and read literary devices as some key to a cosmic order instead of as an individual's subjective view of the world. But what do Romantifags know about the world? C'est la fin des haricots! Thanks, Google!

You might want to expound on such a big claim as the subjectivity of reality a bit more than a mere "and if you disagree, ur a fag". I mean, the fact that science works at all seems to discredit that idea.

How ironic! The only thing absurd in this thread is your own insistence on relativism.

I don't need an ornate slip of paper handed down to me from some hive-minded learning institution in order to discern what is true and what is not. Especially concerning something "subjective" like literature.

You have your own biases, just as I have mine. The difference is, my "bias" is rooted in reality, your bias is rooted in that which satisfies your own ego and keeps you safe from judgement.

Shelly does show some degree of empathy for the peasantry. But it was tempered with a sense of reverence for the noble and the transcendent. If the world was on the verge of collapse due to overpopulation in her own time, Shelley would not have had such a tenderhearted attitude.

Just because you think your worldview is 'better' does not imply that it's more likely to be shared by Shelley. Also, you're contradicting yourself: either literature is subjective and your opinion is not necessarily true, implying you'd have no reason to be so snide, or it's not, implying you are not an authority on it, which means you'd have no reason to be so snide.

Not just this forum. This topic seems to come up everywhere. It seems like any serious discussion I have, whether out in the world or on the net, eventually boils down to some form of this difference of view. It seems like agreeing that there is some objective reality has to be priority one before you can even begin to debate anything else.

Not just this forum. This topic seems to come up everywhere. It seems like any serious discussion I have, whether out in the world or on the net, eventually boils down to some form of this difference of view. It seems like agreeing that there is some objective reality has to be priority one before you can even begin to debate anything else.

The objectivity of reality seems to be most often disregarded in conversation because it is considered the height of arrogance to point out that, not only do you disagree with someone, they are just flat out wrong.

The objectivity of reality seems to be most often disregarded in conversation because it is considered the height of arrogance to point out that, not only do you disagree with someone, they are just flat out wrong.

Clearly you misunderstand -- not only are you flat out wrong, but your opinions are less valid than mine. Oh ho ho!

You might want to expound on such a big claim as the subjectivity of reality a bit more than a mere "and if you disagree, ur a fag". I mean, the fact that science works at all seems to discredit that idea.

lol, if you wanted to choose a good way to defend objectivity you could've done better than science, Christianity is a far more vocal advocate than science in this regard. The fact that science has continually revised its explanations of the universe's composition over the centuries, to the point where the universe is now understood to be composed of an endlessly changing flux, rather than s collection of fixed atomic elements or humors or whatever elementary particle is in vogue, practically proves this. Also the fact that we solely view the world through the interpretation of our senses and cognition, which differ between species (each human, of course, being his own species as well) etc etc etc

But I think this topic is far less fun than the original one, that of what to make of this little passage from Frankenstein and of the OP's assertions. Because upon further reflection I can only conclude that Captious is, objectively, a tool who read Frankenstein with the intent of proving the biological superiority of the noble classes, which he in turn assumed were a basis for ANUS, and, as all people who go into a book with the intention to prove something, came out with exactly what he looked for. Unfortunately for Captious, this passage merely proves that German girls, unlike Italian girls, have blonde hair, that the children of nobles are physically weaker and more emotionally fragile than peasant children, and that Mr. Frankenstein had warm feelings for delicate blonde girls.

Shelly does show some degree of empathy for the peasantry. But it was tempered with a sense of reverence for the noble and the transcendent. If the world was on the verge of collapse due to overpopulation in her own time, Shelley would not have had such a tenderhearted attitude.

But of course (rational) women did have to look to the proles to learn how to be independent of their male captors.

Or in other words, feminism arose from the habits of the lower echelons of the lesser sex.

The subjectivites want every opinion to be equally valid... even if it's insane.

They must be simply self-declared subjectivites - I don't remember ever reading that holding an opinion implies its validity - though opinions are still subjective. The fact that some people misrepresent a concept and say stupid things does not defeat the concept.

And the "objectivites" want every single argument abolished, because there's no need, they're right and they don't need to explain it.

Only when we're being objective can we even hope to make arguments concerning the real world. The fact that some people misrepresent a concept and say stupid things does not defeat the concept.

I think before there is any more debate about objectivity vs. subjectivity, we might have to define the terms more exactly.Some opponents - and some proponents - of objectivity seem to believe "objective" means "unilaterally true." I must disagree.Some opponents - and some proponents - of subjectivity seem to believe "subjective" means "arbitrary." It does not.

But of course (rational) women did have to look to the proles to learn how to be independent of their male captors.

Can you elaborate on this bit right here?

It seems to me that female chastity has been upheld as a virtue among the higher castes of virtually all successful civilizations.

At least, until the bug of liberalism started to spread circa 1789, after which women of noble lineage became concerned solely with their own happiness. Collectively, these women observed the habits of their inferior kin -- the peasant floozies whom were once under dominion of their ancestors -- and thought "being chaste is really lonely and boring... Now these girls, they know how to have a good time! OMG LETS PARTY!!!!!1"

And so began the decline of the west.

But hey, at least us guys don't have to obtain a stamp of approval from our girlfriends' fathers anymore, right?! I mean wtf, why should I be judged and scrutinized by some old fart who doesn't even know how to make his daughter happy. Its her choice bro!!! Don't be such a tyrant... why cant we just like.... live and let live??? U KNO??